So, your problem with the OP was entirely semantic? Based on the word "witness"? Or do we need to get into a discussion about how inferences drawn from evidence, which make falsifiable predictions, and are experimentally verified, are not the same as metaphysical speculation, and "just so" stories?

My problem with the OP is that he used ''not being a witness'' to disprove religions. So i asked him if he was able to witness the big bang because thats what he believes in...that simple. I even bolded that part to let him understand thats what i was referring to